George Jonas: Israel weighs its options over what to do about Iran

Why the persistent speculation that Israel is planning a pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities? One reason is, it would make sense, if technically feasible. Another is, Israel did it before, in Iraq and probably Syria. Last but not least, Israel itself is making the rumour persist.

This week a story in the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel has former Mossad chief Meir Dagan publicly cautioning his government and countrymen against carrying out a pre-emptive attack. Don’t do it, fellows, the former spy-chief says. “We have to think about what would happen the day after.” He speaks of a disaster of unimaginable proportions if Israel doesn’t heed his warning.

Now this isn’t some peacenik talking but an ex-head of the Mossad, a former soldier in an elite unit, decorated for taking a terrorist’s grenade with one hand and strangling him with the other, as the German magazine makes a point of noting.

Der Spiegel may relish the story, as a left-leaning newsmagazine would, but it’s not making it up. Dagan spoke at Tel Aviv’s Industrial and Commercial Club, essentially repeating what he had said before, upsetting even some who agreed with him. Right, wrong, never mind, one veteran said; he’s not a politician, he shouldn’t be talking. If he wants to make policy, let him run for office, get the votes, and then he can talk.

Yes — except in games of international intrigue nothing is as it appears. You don’t need deception when the truth itself is your ruse de guerre. The text of Dagan’s sermon may be: “Don’t do it, my people,” but the subtext, addressed to Tehran’s theocracy, says: “See what you’re making us do? Unless you change course, you guys are toast.”

Stories of a contemplated or impending attack have been floating around the media for some time, often hinting at rifts in government ranks or intelligence communities. When institutions and individuals charged with keeping things under wraps keep leaking rumours of operations that require surprise for success, the news seems stage-managed. But management implies an agenda — well, what is it? Why advertise impending air strikes? Pre-emptive attacks are stealth operations by definition, and as such far more usefully heralded by silence than loud noises. “You can’t snare crows by beating a drum,” folk wisdom advises.

Ah, but what if the object isn’t to snare crows but chase them away? Drums are fine instruments for making flocks of birds take wing, although they haven’t yet been sufficiently tested on ayatollahs. The results could be disappointing. Ayatollahs aren’t likely to fly away from the convenient feeding grounds of Iran’s oily theocracy just because of noisemakers, Israeli or American. If the task is to turn Iran democratic before the theocracy turns it nuclear, sound effects aren’t likely to achieve it.

True, bombing Iran’s nuclear installations to a fine mist may not achieve it, either. Still, it’s hard to blame Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or Defense Minister Ehud Barak for considering bombing a safer prophylactic than waiting for a Persian version of the Arab Spring to reach Tehran. Everyone agrees that a nuclear theocracy in Iran could be fatal for Israel if not the whole region. If one were to take the dispute between the Prime Minister and ex-Mossad chief at face value — I don’t, but Der Spiegel seems to — it would amount to Dagan betting that regime change will come to Iran before nuclear weapons, and Netanyahu refusing to take such a gamble.

According to Spiegel writers Ronen Bergman and Juliane von Mittelstaedt, some Israelis accuse Dagan of winning time for Iran’s nuclear development by his public opposition to air strikes, but the ex-chief feels warning the public is his duty. Ordering an attack is too far-reaching a decision to be made in small circles, in his opinion.

I disagree, with respect. In democracies “small circles” are elected to make decisions, whereas unelected individuals insinuating themselves in the political process bring only the credentials of their ambitions. It’s a different question that an elected person may be wrong and an unelected person may be right. Indeed, the person who has the mandate may not have a clue, but he still has the authority. The solution is not to elect clueless people.

Between mandated Netanyahu and unmandated Dagan, who has the better chance of being right? Can Iran’s reformers change the regime faster than Iran’s techno-theocrats can build the bomb, as Israel’s ex-Mossad chief hopes, or will the theocrats and technocrats outpace Iran’s democrats, as Israel’s Prime Minister fears? Conversely, would a pre-emptive strike hurt Iran’s fragile reform movement more than its theo-technocracy — or would it de-nuke Iran so decisively that whatever else it did would no longer matter?

I don’t have the answers, which doesn’t matter; what worries me is that no one else seems to. The other thing that worries me is that we are running out of time. When we use expressions like “non-proliferation community” to describe those nations that have no interest in developing nuclear weapons, we’ve reached a landmark. The view from here isn’t pretty.

In the wake of a Grammy Awards ceremony that disappointed many, from Kanye West to the masses on Twitter lamenting the state of pop music, a historical perspective is key. Few are better poised to offer one than Andy Kim.